CU evidence goes back three months. There's no way they could have told if the person using Spencer195 was the same one using it now.

Up to a point. If a checkuser is run now it can only go back three months. But maybe Spencer195 had been checked at some point in the past, whether for some reason or just because a CU felt like doing it That CU could have copied the results to a file and kept it. Or maybe Spencer195 was stupid enough to send someone an e-mail not using Gmail; then the IP would be in the e-mail header forever.

Given that he stopped editing in 2005, I find that highly unlikely. Also, I doubt Mikemikev knows Mandarin.

Secondly, you state that the policy on alternative accounts was different and asked what policy you violated. That is not an adequate defense. Policy is descriptive, not prescriptive; the fact that the policy has changed does not mean that community standards have. Thirdly, I was active around the time you left and I can assure you that this kind of behaviour was also unacceptable back then, regardless of what the policy stated.

Deskana concedes that no policy was violated but claims that Spencer's behaviour was nevertheless so unacceptable that a block was needed. Why? On what grounds?

QUOTE

Thidly (sic), you also stated that you don't see what you did wrong. This is the most disturbing thing, and the one (sic) of the main reasons I have blocked you.

Fancy that! He believed that since he acted 100% in accordance with policy he had done nothing wrong!! Block him immediately!!!

Secondly, you state that the policy on alternative accounts was different and asked what policy you violated. That is not an adequate defense. Policy is descriptive, not prescriptive; the fact that the policy has changed does not mean that community standards have. Thirdly, I was active around the time you left and I can assure you that this kind of behaviour was also unacceptable back then, regardless of what the policy stated.

Deskana concedes that no policy was violated but claims that Spencer's behaviour was nevertheless so unacceptable that a block was needed. Why? On what grounds?

QUOTE

Thidly (sic), you also stated that you don't see what you did wrong. This is the most disturbing thing, and the one (sic) of the main reasons I have blocked you.

Fancy that! He believed that since he acted 100% in accordance with policy he had done nothing wrong!! Block him immediately!!!

On a side note, does anyone know if "I'm an admin" pickup lines work? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The part that really caught my eye:

QUOTE

The opposite would also be a red flag situation. If an account remains active for much longer than a century, you can be sure that the original editor is deceased and the account has been handed over to someone else. Count Iblis (talk) 01:39, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

We do have some ninety years to come up with a procedure for such cases. — Coren (talk) 02:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC) Sure ... though the idea of hereditary adminship is rather appealing Roger Davies talk 06:37, 31 May 2011 (UTC) ... and some editors already think we're Lords in a fiefdom ... :-P (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC) Well, if that were the case, we'd need to determine whether administrative rights are transferred by cognatic or agnatic primogeniture. ;-) Kirill [talk] [prof] 15:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC) Why are you excluding matrilineal primogeniture? — Coren (talk) 20:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC) And Salic law. Let's not forget Salic law. Roger Davies talk 20:19, 31 May 2011 (UTC) The day we have the "Viscount of Vandal-Whacking", I'm running fast and far SirFozzie (talk) 21:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC) User:SonOfPedro has already been promised his birth-right. Pedro : Chat 21:37, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

A) their idea of "humor" is extremely nerdy, and not the slightest bit funny;B) I would not be surprised if a few of them really DO want Wikipedia adminship to be inheritable. Now, THAT would be funny.

Ha, this led me to this gem of "original research" in the article on primogeniture:

QUOTE

The term "uterine" implies the woman in whose uterus a fetus developed, which is usually, but not always, the woman whose egg was fertilized to form the embryo. Prior to the 1970s, these were always the same woman, as remains the case for naturally conceived children. However, in cases of surrogacy, in vitro fertilization, and egg donation, it is now possible for a baby born from the uterus of one woman to be the genetic offspring of the egg of another offspring. Therefore, it is now important to distinguish between forms of primogeniture in which inheritance is determined by the woman from whose ovary the egg originated, which could be called "ovarian primogeniture" for clarity, and forms of primogeniture in which inheritance is truly determined uterinely, i.e., by the woman in whose uterus a fetus developed.

The section is titled "Uterine (or ovarian) primogeniture" to reflect the idiosyncratic musings of the feckless author.

Did you realize that I was joking by using "Wikipedia" like "Russian", "German", or whatever other ethnicity?

By the way, I don't preach sermons. I'm Catholic. We have homilies, but they are clergy only. I just explain Catholic viewpoints that are pertinent to current events about once a month (and on a Saturday).

Did you realize that I was joking by using "Wikipedia" like "Russian", "German", or whatever other ethnicity?

By the way, I don't preach sermons. I'm Catholic. We have homilies, but they are clergy only. I just explain Catholic viewpoints that are pertinent to current events about once a month (and on a Saturday).

Jeffrey, since the ED material has all been deleted and the account blocked, the best is for you to blank your posts. Thanks.

Ghear5849 is nothing to do with me. I shut down my YT account myself. Mathsci is a liar and a troll. He has been called "creepy" by women (FeraghoTheAssassin) on WP, so I guess this is his way of projecting his inadequacies.

Mathsci didn't accuse you of possessing an sysop account; Mathsci accused you of being Rrrrr5(T-C-L-K-R-D)
. Although Mathsci was wrong about "Rrrrr5" being you, he was correct in saying that Rrrrr5 was a sockpuppet. A CheckUser later revealed that the sysop account "Spencer195" might've been compromised by the person behind the "Rrrrr5" account:

Mathsci's case against you initially didn't mention "Spencer195" or any other compromised sysop accounts, so he isn't "caught up in [his] own lies." The stuff about "Spencer195" was added later by users other than Mathsci:

Mathsci didn't accuse you of possessing an sysop account; Mathsci accused you of being Rrrrr5(T-C-L-K-R-D)
. Although Mathsci was wrong about "Rrrrr5" being you, he was correct in saying that Rrrrr5 was a sockpuppet. A CheckUser later revealed that the sysop account "Spencer195" might've been compromised by the person behind the "Rrrrr5" account: